PCI DSS 4.0 covers 32.1% of NIS2 Directive
9 of the 28 controls in NIS2 Directive are already satisfied by evidence you collected for PCI DSS 4.0. 19 are genuine gaps. Every claim below was judged against both control sets and then argued against; the ones that did not survive are published further down with the reason each failed.
This number is directional. It says how much of NIS2 Directive your PCI DSS 4.0 evidence satisfies. The reverse pair is a different number, often very different, because a security standard has enormous depth for access control and almost none for lawful basis or data subject rights.
54 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-20, review level machine verified. Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.
Where the gaps are
Coverage is never evenly spread. A source standard usually satisfies one part of a target almost completely and barely touches another, and which part is which is the thing worth knowing before you plan the work.
Theme level, not control level, deliberately. The per-control list of what is evidenced and what is a gap is the report itself, so publishing it here would be publishing the thing being sold.
Claims that held
A sample. Each one names the control whose evidence does the work, the control it satisfies, and why.
Annual policy review updated for changes to risks keeps the policy set tied to risk.
An overall information security policy established, published, maintained and disseminated is the policy limb.
Refining the plan from lessons learned is the post-incident review limb.
Round the clock response coverage answers the out of hours escalation this obligation tests.
Incident response plan covering roles, communication, containment and recovery is the handling capability.
Monitoring provider compliance status manages the relationship beyond onboarding.
Written agreements with providers are the contractual enforcement mechanism named here.
Inventory of third-party service providers is the first artefact this obligation needs.
Claims that did not hold
Nothing proposed for this pair was rejected in review. That is unusual and worth knowing rather than hiding: it means the candidate set was small and every candidate held.
The full report
Everything above is a sample. The report is every evidenced control and every gap, with the reasoning and the source document behind each one, in a form you can hand to an assessor. $299, emailed immediately.
Buy this crosswalk